Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2009AP2241 Rand v. Rand

By: dmc-admin//July 5, 2010//

2009AP2241 Rand v. Rand

By: dmc-admin//July 5, 2010//

Listen to this article

Family
Contempt; attorney fees

A losing party is not entitled to a reduction in attorney's fees for time spent on unsuccessful claims, if the winning party achieved substantial success and the unsuccessful claims were brought and pursued in good faith.

"Wisconsin Stat. § 767.54 … is a remedial fee-shifting statute because it recognizes that without permitting a party to recover his or her attorney's fees when the party ordered to pay child support ignores the full-disclosure mandate it would, as a practical matter, be unlikely that such fraud would be uncovered, especially because the aggrieved party's attorney's fees might very well consume all or a significant part of the recovery. See Bernier v. Bernier, 2006 WI App 2, ¶12, 288 Wis. 2d 743, 752, 709 N.W.2d 453, 457 (Ct. App. 2005) (Fee-shifting statutes '"contemplate that those recovering under them will be made whole."') (enforcement of physical-placement order) (quoted source omitted); see also Kolupar v. Wilde Pontiac Cadillac, Inc., 2007 WI 98, ¶37 n.15, 303 Wis. 2d 258, 281 n.15, 735 N.W.2d 93, 104 n.15. Further, § 767.54 specifically incorporates the contempt chapter, ch. 785, and Wis. Stat. § 785.04(1)(a) also permits the circuit court to direct the party in contempt to pay to the party harmed by the contempt 'a sum of money sufficient to compensate [that] party for a loss or injury suffered by the party as the result of a contempt of court.' (Emphasis added.) This, too, is a make-whole provision. Town of Seymour v. City of Eau Claire, 112 Wis. 2d 313, 320, 332 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Ct. App. 1983) ('[A]ttorney's fees that a person incurs while prosecuting a contempt action [are] losses and damages within the meaning of the contempt statute.'). Thus, we agree, on our de novo review of the circuit court's legal analysis, that the Radford rule also applies to family law disputes under § 767.54. See Garfoot v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 228 Wis. 2d 707, 717, 599 N.W.2d 411, 416 (Ct. App. 1999) (We review de novo whether the circuit court applied the correct legal standard.)."

Affirmed and Remanded.

Publication in the official reports is recommended.

2009AP2241 Rand v. Rand

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Kuhnmuench, J., Fine, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Bykhovsky, Eugene, Milwaukee; For Respondent: St. John, Thomas W., Milwaukee; Meuler, Christopher M., Milwaukee

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests